Not now, but as Member of Parliament in 2015 and since July 2017 as an independent consultant, I have been sending red flags about our dealings with the Chinese State Company Guandong Zhenrong Energy (GZE) regarding the future of the refinery in Curaçao. I had mentioned China’s and the Chinese Communist Party’s (CPC) modus operandi and geopolitical ambitions in these types of projects and the lessons learned in Myanmar. This, to enable us to determine what price we are willing to pay for GZE. These warnings have been met with both positivism and disgruntlement by members of the current Council of Ministers. So while it is good to know that the Government of Curaçao (GoC) has now warmed up to the idea that GZE is not the celestial solution it was purported to be, it is nevertheless disconcerting that not all the political parties in the GoC are on the same line. Believe me, in China all relevant parties talk the same language. Let’s not forget that there is no opposition in that country and that the CPC rejects the principle of separation of power. As a matter of fact, a few years ago senior CPC member, Mr. Zhang, at the end of an official party gathering on promoting ‘communist cultural development’ said of the GZE boss, Mr. Xiong: “In the past I thought Mr. Xiong was just a brilliant entrepreneur. Now I find that he is also a [..] true communist.”

The second point I want to make is that unbeknownst to many, yesterday, 6 November, 2017, a dispute over a US$500 million railway contract between the Philippine government (GoPh) and a large Chinese state-owned company, SINOMACH, was settled outside of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. This costly row had been going on for years after the Chinese first contended that the GoPh made a contractual breach by discontinuing the project. This begs the following observation. Now that GZE is pointing fingers at the GoC and the MDPT (Refinery Project Team) claiming contractual breach, what can we expect? What kind of arbitration have we agreed on in the documents we have signed? We know that for China, Hong Kong is the pre-eminent choice of arbitration involving mainland Chinese parties. How impartial can Hong Kong be? Singapore for example has it that Hong Kong is too close to China. Have we negotiated arbitration in Hong Kong, New York, the ICC International Court of Arbitration? Another venue? Is the fact that we are not WTO-compliant going to play a role in an eventual arbitration case? Independent from the GZE’s accusations, how much thought have we given to the proper mode of dispute resolution as well as the choice of venue? I am not saying they will surely take us to court since it is not unusual for the Chinese to shelve controversial projects or settling out of court. But as Myanmar can attest when it cancelled the Myitsone Hydro Dam due to environmental concern, such actions come with a heavy price tag with China pressuring for preferential treatment in other projects. In any case we received the wake-up call in Curaçao. Next, we should answer it.

Like many, I too was ecstatic by the prospect of having two YdK (Curaçaoans) in the 2017 MLB World Series: Yankees’ Didi Gregorius and Dodgers’ Kenley Jansen. We know by now that only YdK Jansen made it. What caught my attention leading up to the Fall Classic however, was the presumption by a multitude of people -including politicians- that an avalanche of tourists, money and growth would come to our island by having our stars Didi and Kenley promote tourism. That simple. Yes, there we go again. In search of the ever elusive silver bullet instead of tackling the real problems. Of course these ball players would do an excellent job promoting our island, but that’s not the point. No country is prosperous because of some magic. It’s the result of hard work and sacrifice. If we don’t believe this let’s ask Didi and Kenley how they got to be at the top of their games.

My point is not baseball however, but tourism.

Measuring Labor Productivity in Curaçao, a working paper written by Shekinah Dare (Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten, July 2017) estimates that the average productivity growth rate of the main actors in tourism was negative in the periods 2009-2012 and 2012-2015, registering -1.1% and -0.8%, respectively. The author also calculated that tourism as a sector scored below the average negative productivity growth for all sectors. This is very disconcerting because we have been advancing tourism as the most important economic pillar and asking for more money to promote this sector. Given the conclusion of this paper, are we on the right path? Should we keep thinking that by pumping more money into promotion without even touching the topic of labor productivity, we can grow our tourism and economy? Shouldn’t we be jumping into action?

This is not the first time I talk about the importance of labor productivity and a dynamic labor market. When I do, some politicians and union representatives cry foul for in their minds flexibility somehow is equal to labor abuse. A popular idea in the 1950s all around the world. Labor productivity is not about ‘hire and fire’ as some fear. It is certainly not about ludicrous proposals such as 80-20. It is a multifaceted approach: improving the employability of our human capital, investing in innovation and bettering of our migration policies. It’s time that we read and discuss the above mentioned paper. Hopefully at least one Member of Parliament -as was the case with my article about OECD noncompliance- picks this up. It is worth a Parliament discussion. People, the writing is on the wall and we must take action. Fact is that we are not going to unlock our economic potential if we don’t tackle these problems. If not, good luck finding that silver bullet.

According to the World Trade Organization (WTO) there are 524 trade agreements in existence. Curaçao has none and is among a handful of nations without one. A trade agreement means that participating countries phase out tariffs on merchandise trade, reduce restrictions on trade in services and foreign investment. These agreements provide for trade and (well paid) jobs.

Not only don’t we have trade agreements but we are unable to enter into one. This because we have broken our international obligations and could easily face sanctions by (members of the) WTO which could end up costing us millions. No country will even negotiate with Curaçao knowing that we are noncompliant. This is a big obstacle since our products and services face higher tariffs and restrictions compared to others, making us less competitive.

Reason for our trade isolation and noncompliance stems from the 70s when we introduced a very strict protection policy with levies of up to 90%. These protected businesses -not having to worry with competition- raked in millions, costing consumers dearly. While protection in those days was used in some countries to temporarily stimulate infant industries, here it lasted for more than 40 years and became a ‘right’ protected by some politicians. On the eve of the creation of the WTO in 1994 we were told in Marrakesh that we were violating our GATT (General Agreements on Trade and Tariffs) agreements from 1948. No steps were taken to correct this however.

In 2005, the first decision I took as Minister of Economic Affairs was to scrap protection. Many don’t realize how harmful this policy was for the economy. We protected an internal market of 165,000 for decades instead of looking for export markets via trade agreements. The price we are still paying for this failed policy is trade isolation and possible sanctions.

The first priority is to renegotiate with our partners in order to ensure that our trade regime complies with international trade principles. In the recent past I held two high-level meetings with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to resolve this matter. Insiders have indicated that the government of Curaçao (GoC) is not going to build on the progress made, but will opt for a different path which is complicated and risky. We should bear in mind that missteps at this stage can be costly as we could face penalties from our international partners. To make matters worse it seems that the GoC is being ill-advised to start seeking a direct WTO-membership for Curaçao replacing our current status as WTO-member via the Kingdom of The Netherlands. An independent WTO membership is a decision taken in 1998. I do not think a change of status is a priority now and the GoC should review this 20-year-old decision. In any case we should not be poking sleeping bears, especially not at this stage. But most importantly, let us realize we are in desperate need of new trade opportunities. We cannot stay isolated in a world with an ever-growing amount of trade agreements. We must get this one right.

The OECD’s Forum on Harmful Tax Practices assessed 164 jurisdictions against internationally-agreed standards set in the OECD/G20 base erosion profit shifting (BEPS) agreements. According to the report, 20 nations/territories, including Curaçao, are noncompliant. In our case the Tax exempt facility, the Export facility and the EZone facility don’t comply with international standards. The BEPS standards on preferential tax regimes are designed to stop countries from offering tax breaks for geographically mobile income that facilitate base erosion and profit shifting.

While countries all around the world have already reacted on this report, Curaçao has remained silent. No reaction from Government, Parliament or even our International Financial Sector (IFSC). This is very disconcerting. Especially when we add to the mix our problems with correspondent banks, an uncertain monetary union with Sint Maarten and the criminal case against the President of the Central Bank. Where is the sense of urgency? As soon as this report becomes widely known, some groups will dust off their tired anti-globalization rhetoric and start accusing the world and The Netherlands. Others will refer to the past glory days of offshore, without offering solutions. What we need is a conversation about creating a conducive environment where our financial businesses can build deep capabilities, grow, internationalize and in the process, create a range of good jobs. We need to overhaul our rigid labor market and migration policies. We need to build more efficient legislative and bureaucratic systems to not only comply with new international norms, but to build a more competitive economic environment. To become defensive and mad at the world wil not help. Let’s use this report to not further delay needed reforms.

You’ll never understand the pain of being at the opposite end of fake news until you are the one feeling it. Too many people have personally suffered or had their lives shattered by fake news. Few months before the election in 2016 a local morning paper quoted me in a made-up story saying that my opponent won thanks to corruption. Since the election was months away this was a deliberate lie. When I confronted the newspaper I was told, “it’s normal for writers to be creative when trying to make a point. No biggie”. Not only was I severely criticized, but my opponents greedily used this item during the campaign.

Fake news is not new. Pheme, the Greek Goddess of false news, was described as having multiple tongues and destabilizing those seduced by her trumpet thousands of years ago (see photo). I get that exaggeration and errors are inevitable in journalism, but fake news is something else -and much more dangerous: it is the spread of deliberate misinformation or fabricated stories with the intent to gain financially, politically or in popularity.

The bigger danger of fake news is when people act on misinformation. Hannah Arendt, in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” asserted, “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi [..], but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction no longer exists.” Fake news has pointed out a major flaw of our democracy: it is unsuccessful in guaranteeing good governments since it is subject to the irrationality which fake news today exploits. I have argued before that the time has come to evaluate our Western-style democracy which has not been reviewed since it inspired the French Revolution in the 18th century. Paradoxically the internet’s democratization of news outlets has proven a danger to democracy. People don’t really believe what they’re reading in the mainstream media, so they’re even more prone to want to believe other things that people are spreading.

Fake news is like poison that is injected in small doses. It undermines the very fundamentals of a democratic society. So how do we stop it? A handful of countries are in the process of preparing legalization to curb this. One difficulty they face is to come up with a consistent definition of fake news. The second important difficulty is deciding who is going to implement such laws. Governments? Mainstream media? Why trust them if they themselves are sometimes part of the fake news problem? A more viable alternative seems to be independent fact-checking organisations to fight the problem. But maybe the most durable solution is to educate people how to pick up and understand what is fake.

I do not have a silver bullet. I do not think anyone does. What I do suggest is for us to have a national conversation on this matter. Sooner rather than later. Our peace of mind and democracy depend on it.

Posts navigation

Text Widget

Alex David Rosaria (50) is from Curaçao and has a MBA from the University of Iowa. He is a former Member of Parliament, Minister of Economic Affairs, State Secretary of Finance and UN Implementation Officer in Africa and Central America.